9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remium received - assessee had raised fresh paid-up share capital - HELD THAT:- AO recorded finding in one and a half page which has no coherence with the subject. It is just a jurisprudence taken out from some commentary or we do not know whether he has kept it as a readily available material. Order does not disclose who are the share applicants, how much money has been received by the assessee from these share applicants whether they are taxable entities or individuals. In the computation of income, AO has made addition of Rs. 4.70 Cr but in the next line observed that assessed total income is Rs. 3.32 Cr. In the next line, he again made taxable income at Rs. 4.70 Cr. All these things are discernible from perusal of the assessment order extracted . CIT(A), though, devoted 13 pages to record the finding that additions made by ld. AO deserves to be upheld but out of those 13 pages, he also reproduced the readily available material from some earlier discussions in some other case - he just cut paste from a readymade available material. It does not show any application of mind. It is pertinent to observe that order of the first appellate authority is an ex-parte order but sub-Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sh. S.K. Bose, one of the directors who also pleaded that the company has requested the tax consultant to prepare an appeal to the Hon'ble Tribunal. However, due to some miscommunication and improper advice at the end of the tax consultant, the appeal could not be filed well in time. The affidavit of Sh. S.K. Bose is also available. 3. On the other hand, ld. D/R submitted that assessee should be more vigilant in pursuing its remedy before the higher appellate authority. He also pointed out that not only before the Tribunal assessee did not submit relevant details before the first appellate authority as well as ld. Assessing Officer (in short ld. AO ). According to ld. D/R, assessee is negligent throughout i.e. from ld. AO up to the second appellate authority. Therefore, no sympathetic view be taken in favour of the assessee. 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. The assessee has taken 7 grounds of appeal. However, all the grounds are theoretical and peripheral in nature without specifically pointing out the grievance. In brief, the grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,70,26,000/- added by ld. AO with the aid of Section 68 of the Act by way of an ex-parte order. 7. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 29.03.2013 declaring total income NIL. Ld. AO has passed a scrutiny assessment and determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 4,70,26,000/-. The assessment order is a very brief order running into two and a half page. For the facility of reference, we take note of the complete assessment order which read as under: The assessee e-filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.03.2013 disclosing return income of Rs. NIL/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS with reason for selection of large share premium received. Accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was generated and issued to the assessee at the address mentioned in the I.T. Return. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Delhi)[2013], The assessee was a private limited company, which cannot issue shares in the same manner .in which a public limited company does. It has to generally depend on persons known to its directors or shareholders directly or indirectly to buy its shares. There must be some positive evidence to show the nature and source of the resources of the share-subscriber himself. In this case, there was no compliance either on the part of the assessee company. When the finding is that the assessee company have not been found existing at the addresses given in the return of income, it is open to the AO to hold that the identity of the sharesubscribers, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions has not been proved. Section 68 of the Act provides for charging to income-tax any sum credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year if the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. It places no duty upon the Assessing Officer to point to the sources from which the money was received by the assessee. Where an assessee fails to prove sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made addition of Rs. 4.70 Cr but in the next line observed that assessed total income is Rs. 3.32 Cr. In the next line, he again made taxable income at Rs. 4.70 Cr. All these things are discernible from perusal of the assessment order extracted (supra). 10. Ld. CIT(A), though, devoted 13 pages to record the finding that additions made by ld. AO deserves to be upheld but out of those 13 pages, he also reproduced the readily available material from some earlier discussions in some other case. In other words, page nos. 3 to 12 are just cut paste from a readymade available material. It does not show any application of mind. It is pertinent to observe that order of the first appellate authority is an ex-parte order but sub-Section 6 of Section 250 of the Act contemplates that ld. first appellate authority would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. Both the authorities have not framed the points or explained who are the share applicants, how much money has been received by the assessee from each share applicant. A total figure has just been mentioned and which has been included in the taxable income of the assessee. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
